Model comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Llama 3.2 11B

Gemini 3.5 Flash has enough public results to be ranked (#32); Llama 3.2 11B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 3.5 Flash Google

54.2

Rank #32 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 11B Meta

32.1

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher in 1 category and Llama 3.2 11B in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in multimodal, where Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 45.7 to 24.4.
  • Llama 3.2 11B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 3.5 Flash and Llama 3.2 11B specifications
Gemini 3.5 FlashLlama 3.2 11B
ProviderGoogleMeta
Noometry Index54.232.1
Released2026-05-192024-09-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output66K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.50—
Output $ / M tokens$9—
Results tracked543

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 49.4 (#49), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLlama 3.2 11B
SWE-bench Verified79.3%—
DeepSWE37.4%—
LMArena WebDev1499—
SciCode53.1%—
WeirdML62.6%—
LMArena Coding1492—
ALE-Bench911.02—

Agentic & Tool Use Llama 3.2 11B leads

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 24.7 (#114), Llama 3.2 11B: 27.3

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLlama 3.2 11B
APEX-Agents27.5%—
BALROG—16.8%
GBAEval6.7%—
GDP.pdf14%—
Vending-Bench 25,396—

Reasoning Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 62.8 (#18), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLlama 3.2 11B
ARC-AGI-272.1%—
SimpleBench76.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.6%—
ARC-AGI-192.5%—
CritPt13.1%—
Chess Puzzles50%—
EnigmaEval25.4%—
EBR-Bench4.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1488—
Mystery Game Puzzles32%—
DTBench94.7%—
LMCA47.1%—
Surface Evolver Bench58.1%—
Epoch Capabilities Index154.46—
ForecastBench59—

Math Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 60.7 (#36), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Knowledge Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 66.3 (#11), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLlama 3.2 11B
GPQA Diamond92.8%—
SimpleQA Verified66.2%—
LMArena Expert1495—
MMLU—56.5%

Multimodal Gemini 3.5 Flash leads

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.7 (#15), Llama 3.2 11B: 24.4

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLlama 3.2 11B
LMArena Vision1310966
Blueprint-Bench 233.6%—
LMArena Document1463—

Multilingual Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 57.0 (#13), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLlama 3.2 11B
LMArena Non-English1476—
LMArena Chinese1526—
LMArena French1490—
LMArena German1492—
LMArena Japanese1486—
LMArena Korean1451—
LMArena Russian1493—
LMArena Spanish1480—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 77.0 (#30), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLlama 3.2 11B
LMArena Instruction Following1467—

Long Context Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 45.4 (#38), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLlama 3.2 11B
LMArena Longer Query1482—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 65.5 (#47), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLlama 3.2 11B
LMArena Text1482—
LMArena Creative Writing1470—
EQ-Bench 41087—
LMArena Multi-Turn1481—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 3.5 Flash better than Llama 3.2 11B?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has enough public results to be ranked (#32); Llama 3.2 11B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.5 Flash and Llama 3.2 11B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 11B has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper